|
Ipomea
Just in case anyone had suddenly remembered. Please cam anyone identify the Ipomea or Morning Glory that has HUGE pale/bright blue flowers? I saw several plants last year one at Waterperry's even but no one could tell me the name of that particular one. The flowers are about twice to three times larger than the ordinary Morning Glory and the blue is like a baby blue rather than the darker shades. Janet -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Ipomea
On 25/2/07 12:17, in article , "Janet Tweedy"
wrote: Just in case anyone had suddenly remembered. Please cam anyone identify the Ipomea or Morning Glory that has HUGE pale/bright blue flowers? I saw several plants last year one at Waterperry's even but no one could tell me the name of that particular one. The flowers are about twice to three times larger than the ordinary Morning Glory and the blue is like a baby blue rather than the darker shades. Janet Not I. Heavenly Blue? That has large flowers. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon http://www.discoverdartmoor.co.uk/ (remove weeds from address) |
Ipomea
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message ... Just in case anyone had suddenly remembered. Please cam anyone identify the Ipomea or Morning Glory that has HUGE pale/bright blue flowers? I saw several plants last year one at Waterperry's even but no one could tell me the name of that particular one. The flowers are about twice to three times larger than the ordinary Morning Glory and the blue is like a baby blue rather than the darker shades. Janet There's Heavenly Blue http://www.sementes.de/shop/index.ht...Blue_12675.htm Blue Silk http://serendipityacres.com/WSing/BlueSilkDuo.jpg Blue Star http://davesgarden.com/pf/showimage/122790/ Blue Lagoon http://www.seedsplants.com/Ipomoea%2...E%20LAGOON.htm HTH :~) Jenny |
Ipomea
Could it be Ipomoea indica? Try the following link for pictures - the flowers
look very large. http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/i...oea_indica.htm Best of luck, John __________________________________________________ _________ Janet Tweedy wrote: Just in case anyone had suddenly remembered. Please cam anyone identify the Ipomea or Morning Glory that has HUGE pale/bright blue flowers? I saw several plants last year one at Waterperry's even but no one could tell me the name of that particular one. The flowers are about twice to three times larger than the ordinary Morning Glory and the blue is like a baby blue rather than the darker shades. Janet -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Ipomea
In article , John writes: | | Could it be Ipomoea indica? Try the following link for pictures - the flowers | look very large. Nope. They are almost always dark blue, and little larger than a common morning glory. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Ipomea
Nick Maclaren wrote:
| Could it be Ipomoea indica? ............ Nope. They are almost always dark blue, and little larger than a common morning glory. Ipomoea indica (formerly I. learii) flowers open an intense blue taking on purplish tones after a few hours before becoming pinkish as they fade. It's a perennial species with 10cms. wide flowers that does not seem to set seed in this country at least and has to be propagated by cuttings. I grow it outside, where it runs about for 7m. or more each year. I've noticed that under glass in more equable temperatures, the blue coloration remains purer for longer with fewer pinkish-purple tones. It would seem that the intensity of the blue is temperature-dependent - the last flowers opening in December are always pink with only the slightest hint of blue. As to the plants Janet saw at Waterperrys, it's a fair bet they were Japanese bred, Ipomoea nil variants. For many years, the Japanese have been working on a very wide range of colour forms and flower sizes with some producing flowers that expand to rather more than 15cms. across. The problem with these more spectacular forms is that they really need to be grown under glass in this country if the maximum flower sizes and best colours are to be achieved. In a mainly hot summers like last year they do well, but in cool or wet summers their performance compared to 'Heavenly Blue' is often very poor. Which is why they are not more widely seen in the UK. Some friends who live in Florida usually grow a few from seed that they get direct from Japan. I've seen photos of them in the past and some of the flowers are almost too large. I've been trying to get in touch with them, but they seem to be away at the moment. I'll try and get a source address for you if you like, |
Ipomea
In article . com, "Dave Poole" writes: | | Ipomoea indica (formerly I. learii) flowers open an intense blue | taking on purplish tones after a few hours before becoming pinkish as | they fade. It's a perennial species with 10cms. wide flowers that | does not seem to set seed in this country at least and has to be | propagated by cuttings. I grow it outside, where it runs about for | 7m. or more each year. I've noticed that under glass in more equable | temperatures, the blue coloration remains purer for longer with fewer | pinkish-purple tones. It would seem that the intensity of the blue is | temperature-dependent - the last flowers opening in December are | always pink with only the slightest hint of blue. Probably only at low temperatures, then. I have noticed no colour changes from temperatures of 10 to 30 Celcius in my conservatory. And it grows a lot more than 7 metres in a season even in a UK glasshouse! In that range, it always opens an intense, fairly deep blue in the early morning, becomes pinkish and starts to flop in the evening, and drops in a fully pink, shrivelled form the next evening. Searching the Web indicates that it is globally self-sterile, because its pollen is non-viable (I can't remember if it doesn't germinate, or germinates and fails to reach the ovary). Apparently two other species of Ipomoea (at least) will germinate pollen on its flowers, but they then fail to grow down the tube to the ovary. And it propagates even more easily by layering - just try to stop it! Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Ipomea
In article , Sacha
writes Not I. Heavenly Blue? That has large flowers. I thought it might be but Nickys seeds site and two catalogues seem to suggest that this has a darker blue flower with a white centre and the ones I saw last year were HUGE flowers and a baby blue definitely. Janet -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Ipomea
In article , John
writes Could it be Ipomoea indica? Try the following link for pictures - the flowers look very large. http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/i...oea_indica.htm Best of luck, Yes! that's exactly the colour John, though difficult to judge the size. I'll try and get the seeds from that one as it looks the nearest! I did grow several varieties from the Chiltern seed catalogues last year but chose Milky Way which was a white striped one, a crimson one, I think was Serenade and one that never did anything. A big mistake as everyone that came to the house remarked that I had got a wed growing amongst the climber next to the front door:) They all thought it was bindweed :) One person actually had some in her hand having helpfully yanked a string out whilst waiting for me to answer the door! -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Ipomea
In article , Nick Maclaren
writes In article , John writes: | | Could it be Ipomoea indica? Try the following link for pictures - |the flowers | look very large. Nope. They are almost always dark blue, and little larger than a common morning glory. Regards, Nick Maclaren. Nick, that isn't what is in the photograph link. That link shows exactly the baby blue colour that I saw last year. I was surprised because several of the people growing it are not 'specialist' gardeners in any sense and had just apparently "sown a packet of seeds" Janet -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Ipomea
In article . com, Dave
Poole writes Some friends who live in Florida usually grow a few from seed that they get direct from Japan. I've seen photos of them in the past and some of the flowers are almost too large. I've been trying to get in touch with them, but they seem to be away at the moment. I'll try and get a source address for you if you like, Thank you, much appreciated. Waterperry's had theirs growing outside the restaurant and the two gardeners I asked did 'n't seem o think it was anyhting out of then ordinary. One friend had grown it in her garden in Swallowfield, again though a little protected on her south facing wall, it apparently had come from 'just a packet of morning glory seeds'. Two others I saw in NGS gardens and again the owners had thought it nothing strange. It is the blue in the link that John gave for indica but, as you say, it might be the growing conditions? It was very attractive and I would love to have that colour! janet -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Ipomea
In article , Nick Maclaren
writes Searching the Web indicates that it is globally self-sterile, because its pollen is non-viable (I can't remember if it doesn't germinate, or germinates and fails to reach the ovary). Ah well at least one of the plants I saw last year had seeds. I did get three seeds from an early set pod (with permission) but they didn't germinate. Waterperry's was too near the restaurant door to even think of taking a pod :) Not that I would of course, without first asking! -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Ipomea
In article , Janet Tweedy writes: | | Searching the Web indicates that it is globally self-sterile, because | its pollen is non-viable (I can't remember if it doesn't germinate, or | germinates and fails to reach the ovary). | | Ah well at least one of the plants I saw last year had seeds. | I did get three seeds from an early set pod (with permission) but they | didn't germinate. I think that you will find that it is NOT I. indica. In fact, I am surprised at that Web page, because at least most forms are much darker, I didn't know that there was a white form, and the leaves look wrong. When I referred to a Web search, I was using the more botanical hits as authoritative, incidentally. See the following for a more typical set of flowers and leaves: http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/l...5728110.html?3 I have also never discovered whether the darker one that was/is common in Turkey and was grown by my great aunt is I. indica or something else. My guess is that what is on that Web page and what you are referring to is a different plant. Now, whether what I know as I. indica is the true I. indica, or whether what that page and/or you do is, I am less certain. I should have to find a genuinely authoritative reference in Ipomoea to be sure. And, of course, the botanists may well be playing name games again :-( Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Ipomea
Nick Maclaren wrote:
I think that you will find that it is NOT I. indica. In fact, I am surprised at that Web page, because at least most forms are much darker, I didn't know that there was a white form, and the leaves look wrong. When I referred to a Web search, I was using the more botanical hits as authoritative, incidentally. See the following for a more typical set of flowers and leaves: It's a very bad and misleading web page. You have to look further to see that all but one of the pics that are accredited with being Ipomoea indica are entirely different species. http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/l...5728110.html?3 Ah. Now that pic in the 3rd message down is more like it - as typical of I. indica as you could wish. It is the plant that I grow here and grew many years ago at my nursery. My first plant was from a cutting I got from Oxford Botanical Gardens, but in those days we all called it Ipomoea learii. Janet, if the plant you have seen was grown from seed, it could not have been Ipomoea indica. That species has confounded botanists and horticulturalists alike because it has never been know to set seed and its sole method of procreation is via self-layering. Can you remember roughly how big the flowers were? From the Ipomoea perspective, large is in the region of 10cms.(3") or more across (I. indica produces flowers this size). Very large flowers exceed that by a fair degree and if they are closer to 15cms. (6") or more across, they almost certainly must be variants of Ipomoea nil. |
Ipomea
In article . com, "Dave Poole" writes: | | It's a very bad and misleading web page. You have to look further to | see that all but one of the pics that are accredited with being | Ipomoea indica are entirely different species. I am glad that I have not lost ALL of my marbles - that's what I thought! | Very large flowers exceed that by a fair degree | and if they are closer to 15cms. (6") or more across, they almost | certainly must be variants of Ipomoea nil. I have never seen them that size in the UK, but I am no great expert on them. The seeds that I have sown that claimed to grow to that size, er, didn't. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Ipomea
In article , Nick Maclaren
writes | Ah well at least one of the plants I saw last year had seeds. | I did get three seeds from an early set pod (with permission) but they | didn't germinate. I think that you will find that it is NOT I. indica. In fact, I am surprised at that Web page, because at least most forms are much darker I am now totally confused as I have seen pictures of the darker flowers on the web and in books and also pictures of the baby/sky blue colour I saw last year. Could there be different strains of this then? The Ipomea in Swallowfield had set what looked like early seed pods and I planted them but nothing germinated. With reference to David's question about size, the flowers are much bigger than the normal Ipomea but I am terrible at guessing dimensions I'm afraid. I would have said they were at least an inch and a half on average, bigger than the normal plants. I shall do what someone suggested and contact Waterperry's again and ask if they can tell me. Maybe I was unlucky with the person I spoke to last year. Thanks to everyone for their help. -- Janet Tweedy Amersham Gardening Association http://www.amersham-gardening.net |
Ipomea
This is the nearest I have seen to the flowers appearance. I do note however that the buds are clearly darker in colour so presumably these flowers change as they open and possibly as they fade? Can't tell the size though very well. Don't remember the white being so prominent but again maybe plants vary? http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/FloraDa...laceae/Convolv ulaceae-Ipomoea%20alba-107.jpg Janet -- Janet Tweedy Dalmatian Telegraph http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk |
Ipomea
In article , Janet Tweedy writes: | | I am now totally confused as I have seen pictures of the darker flowers | on the web and in books and also pictures of the baby/sky blue colour I | saw last year. Could there be different strains of this then? | The Ipomea in Swallowfield had set what looked like early seed pods and | I planted them but nothing germinated. Given that David has confirmed my memory, if it has seed pods, it is NOT I. indica. No ifs or buts. I. indica does not set seed. There are something like 500 species, of which at least half a dozen are in cultivation and will grow outside in the UK during the summer; quite possibly, several of the others will, too. The cultivars of the commonly grown species (see below) are very variable in size and colour, so odds on it is one of them. There has been a fair amount of botanical renaming, too, and I have never worked out what the situation is between I. nil, I. purpurea, I. triloba (a synonym of I. nil?) and I. tricolor. I believe that there are also hybrids. I can state definitely that there is a HELL of a lot of confusion on the Web and in books over this, and even quite respectable books conflict badly with each other, so I am in good company. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Ipomea
In message , Nick Maclaren
writes In article , Janet Tweedy writes: | | I am now totally confused as I have seen pictures of the darker flowers | on the web and in books and also pictures of the baby/sky blue colour I | saw last year. Could there be different strains of this then? | The Ipomea in Swallowfield had set what looked like early seed pods and | I planted them but nothing germinated. Given that David has confirmed my memory, if it has seed pods, it is NOT I. indica. No ifs or buts. I. indica does not set seed. I found a claim in Am. J. Bot. That I. indica is self-incompatible. If this is correct then it is possible that it does set seed in the wild, but that the cultivated stock is a single clone. (For comparison, Lavatera 'Bicolor' is resolutely sterile in normal cultivation, but does produce seed when grown alongside Lavatera acerifolia. I want to obtain wild-collected seed of Lavatera maritima to test the nature of Lavatera 'Bicolor' further.) There are something like 500 species, of which at least half a dozen are in cultivation and will grow outside in the UK during the summer; quite possibly, several of the others will, too. The cultivars of the commonly grown species (see below) are very variable in size and colour, so odds on it is one of them. There has been a fair amount of botanical renaming, too, and I have never worked out what the situation is between I. nil, I. purpurea, I. triloba (a synonym of I. nil?) and I. tricolor. I believe that there are also hybrids. I can state definitely that there is a HELL of a lot of confusion on the Web and in books over this, and even quite respectable books conflict badly with each other, so I am in good company. I can't really help with this, but after a little digging. I find that = The true Ipomoea triloba L. is more closely related to the sweet potato (subg. Batatas) than to the other species. Ipomoea triloba Thunb. Is given by IPNI (http://www.ipni.org) as a synonym of Ipomoea hederacea. (The existence of an Ipomoea purpurea var triloba may add to the confusion, regardless whether that plant is correctly placed in I. purpurea.) I found a citation, requiring JSTOR access, to Austin, Nomenclature of the Ipomoea nil Complex (Convolvulaceae), Taxon 35(2): 355-358 (1986), which might clarify things further. No doubt you'll be skeptical, but a molecular paper on the subject is Miller et al, Systematics of Ipomoea subgenus Quamoclit (Convolvulaceae) based on ITS sequence data and a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis, Am. J. Bot. 91(8): 1208-1218 (2004). See http://wwww.amjbot.org From then above cited paper, I. hederacea, I. nil and I. indica are a group of closely related species. (Reading between the lines lumpers may be tempted to place them in a single species.) Again from the cited paper, I. hederacea selfs, I. nil is self-compatible and I. indica self-incompatible. The resolution of the study isn't great, but the group of species consisting of I. purpurea, I. pubescens and I. lindheimeri appears to be separated from the preceding. I. tricolor is more distant. There's no indication in IPNI of any confusion of the application of the names I. purpurea and I. tricolor, though the usual lumper/splitter issues may well apply. Regards, Nick Maclaren. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
Ipomea
In article , Stewart Robert Hinsley writes: | | Given that David has confirmed my memory, if it has seed pods, it is | NOT I. indica. No ifs or buts. I. indica does not set seed. | | I found a claim in Am. J. Bot. That I. indica is self-incompatible. If | this is correct then it is possible that it does set seed in the wild, | but that the cultivated stock is a single clone. I found quite a few references of that form in 'academic' places. As posted earlier, exactly what 'a single clone' means in the context of vegetatively reproducing plants isn't at all clear :-) | There has been a fair amount of botanical renaming, too, and I have | never worked out what the situation is between I. nil, I. purpurea, | I. triloba (a synonym of I. nil?) and I. tricolor. I believe that | there are also hybrids. I can state definitely that there is a HELL | of a lot of confusion on the Web and in books over this, and even | quite respectable books conflict badly with each other, so I am in | good company. | | I can't really help with this, but after a little digging. I find that = | | The true Ipomoea triloba L. is more closely related to the sweet potato | (subg. Batatas) than to the other species. Ipomoea triloba Thunb. Is | given by IPNI (http://www.ipni.org) as a synonym of Ipomoea hederacea. | (The existence of an Ipomoea purpurea var triloba may add to the | confusion, regardless whether that plant is correctly placed in I. | purpurea.) | | I found a citation, requiring JSTOR access, to Austin, Nomenclature of | the Ipomoea nil Complex (Convolvulaceae), Taxon 35(2): 355-358 (1986), | which might clarify things further. | | No doubt you'll be skeptical, but a molecular paper on the subject is | Miller et al, Systematics of Ipomoea subgenus Quamoclit (Convolvulaceae) | based on ITS sequence data and a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis, Am. J. | Bot. 91(8): 1208-1218 (2004). See http://wwww.amjbot.org | | From then above cited paper, I. hederacea, I. nil and I. indica are a | group of closely related species. (Reading between the lines lumpers may | be tempted to place them in a single species.) Again from the cited | paper, I. hederacea selfs, I. nil is self-compatible and I. indica | self-incompatible. I am not so much skeptical as completely croggled! Exactly how a single species could have variants like that makes me certain that I am not using the term "species" in the same way as you (or the authors, if you are quoting them) are! But I really don't know what a species is in the context of some plants - blackberries being a good example :-) Thanks for the references. I must look them up, if only to expand my mind in peculiar ways .... Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Ipomea
In message , Nick Maclaren
writes In article , Stewart Robert Hinsley writes: | | Given that David has confirmed my memory, if it has seed pods, it is | NOT I. indica. No ifs or buts. I. indica does not set seed. | | I found a claim in Am. J. Bot. That I. indica is self-incompatible. If | this is correct then it is possible that it does set seed in the wild, | but that the cultivated stock is a single clone. I found quite a few references of that form in 'academic' places. As posted earlier, exactly what 'a single clone' means in the context of vegetatively reproducing plants isn't at all clear :-) | There has been a fair amount of botanical renaming, too, and I have | never worked out what the situation is between I. nil, I. purpurea, | I. triloba (a synonym of I. nil?) and I. tricolor. I believe that | there are also hybrids. I can state definitely that there is a HELL | of a lot of confusion on the Web and in books over this, and even | quite respectable books conflict badly with each other, so I am in | good company. | | I can't really help with this, but after a little digging. I find that = | | The true Ipomoea triloba L. is more closely related to the sweet potato | (subg. Batatas) than to the other species. Ipomoea triloba Thunb. Is | given by IPNI (http://www.ipni.org) as a synonym of Ipomoea hederacea. | (The existence of an Ipomoea purpurea var triloba may add to the | confusion, regardless whether that plant is correctly placed in I. | purpurea.) | | I found a citation, requiring JSTOR access, to Austin, Nomenclature of | the Ipomoea nil Complex (Convolvulaceae), Taxon 35(2): 355-358 (1986), | which might clarify things further. | | No doubt you'll be skeptical, but a molecular paper on the subject is | Miller et al, Systematics of Ipomoea subgenus Quamoclit (Convolvulaceae) | based on ITS sequence data and a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis, Am. J. | Bot. 91(8): 1208-1218 (2004). See http://wwww.amjbot.org | | From then above cited paper, I. hederacea, I. nil and I. indica are a | group of closely related species. (Reading between the lines lumpers may | be tempted to place them in a single species.) Again from the cited | paper, I. hederacea selfs, I. nil is self-compatible and I. indica | self-incompatible. I am not so much skeptical as completely croggled! Exactly how a single species could have variants like that makes me certain that I am not using the term "species" in the same way as you (or the authors, if you are quoting them) are! I hope it was obvious that I wasn't quoting them, when I said "reading between the line". Another paper, which I perhaps should have mentioned, is Shinners, Untypification for Ipomoea Nil (L.) Roth, Taxon 14(7): 231-234 (1965). The little I can see of this seems to imply that Linnaeus didn't distinguish between I. nil and I. hederacea. Self-incompatibility is not always absolute, and may vary among the self-incompatibility alleles in a species. There is precedent - Malus domestica - for a species containing both self-compatible and self-incompatible genotypes. And in general, it does not seem implausible that a population of a species could lose self-incompatibility with relative ease. Variation in the ability to self can also occur in a species; it may not require much morphological change to bring anthers into contact with stigmas. The Australian form of Pavonia hastata ("Greevesia cleistocalyx"), which may be native to Australia, or may be an early introduction, produces cleistogamous, as well as chasmogamous, flowers, which I have the impression is not the case for the South American populations, and therefore might have a higher rate of selfing. So, while I am not going to argue that they are all a single species - I'd have to know more about the group first - I don't think that the difference in breeding system is a disproof of the hypothesis. For example, Fraxinus excelsior is trioecious, that is some plants have male flowers, some female flowers and some hermaphrodite flowers. In such a case regional variation could easily (by loss of one type of flower) result in dioecious, andromonoecious or gynodioecious populations. (For an explanation of the jargon see http://www.malvaceae.info/Biology/SexDistribution.html) But I really don't know what a species is in the context of some plants - blackberries being a good example :-) Thanks for the references. I must look them up, if only to expand my mind in peculiar ways .... Regards, Nick Maclaren. -- Stewart Robert Hinsley |
Ipomea
In article , Stewart Robert Hinsley writes: | | | | From then above cited paper, I. hederacea, I. nil and I. indica are a | | group of closely related species. (Reading between the lines lumpers may | | be tempted to place them in a single species.) Again from the cited | | paper, I. hederacea selfs, I. nil is self-compatible and I. indica | | self-incompatible. | | I am not so much skeptical as completely croggled! Exactly how a | single species could have variants like that makes me certain that | I am not using the term "species" in the same way as you (or the | authors, if you are quoting them) are! | | I hope it was obvious that I wasn't quoting them, when I said "reading | between the line". What I meant was I wasn't judging whether that was your opinion or whether you were merely reporting it! You didn't say :-) | Another paper, which I perhaps should have mentioned, is Shinners, | Untypification for Ipomoea Nil (L.) Roth, Taxon 14(7): 231-234 (1965). | The little I can see of this seems to imply that Linnaeus didn't | distinguish between I. nil and I. hederacea. The little I know includes the fact that Ipomoea was one of the genera where Linnaus's view of the species was very different from the modern one - and even the pre-DNA modern one. It is surprising that there are so few. | Self-incompatibility is not always absolute, and may vary among the | self-incompatibility alleles in a species. There is precedent - Malus | domestica - for a species containing both self-compatible and | self-incompatible genotypes. And in general, it does not seem | implausible that a population of a species could lose | self-incompatibility with relative ease. | | ... | | So, while I am not going to argue that they are all a single species - | I'd have to know more about the group first - I don't think that the | difference in breeding system is a disproof of the hypothesis. ... Yes, indeed, but this brings me onto another reason that I regard so much of modern plant taxonomy as being the modern equivalent of the mediaeval theologians spending lifetimes analysing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Even ignoring the question of monophylogeny, the concept of species is severely flawed even in vertebrates (as Darwin knew), and almost hopeless for many plants. Most specialists are aware of this, intellectually, but far too many fail to draw the obvious conclusion that taking classification into species too seriously leads directly to madness. The UK classic is, of course, the bramble :-) By any reasonable traditional definition, plants as different as I. indica and any of the species we grow as annuals count as different species. Just as Malus domestica counts as a single (or small number of species), despite having SOME essentially incompatible varieties. The simple fact is that species identity is NOT an equivalence relation! Without learning a lot more, I can't comment about the others. I wasn't considering JUST the difference in breeding system, incidentally, as that would have me committing an intellectual faux pas that I have accused others of :-) Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter